With Tokenomics 3.0 now active and dApp Staking limited to only 16 high impact projects, it is time to evaluate whether every project in the list truly delivers measurable value to the Astar ecosystem and the ASTR token.
Astar Degens current status:
NFT DAO/collection focused on community events, NFT bridging to Soneium, and internal reward distribution to OG holders.
A significant portion of their dApp Staking rewards is redistributed directly to NFT holders (monthly ASTR subsidies, staking campaigns, airdrops).
On chain activity is almost exclusively staking claims and reward distribution, with minimal broader utility.
NFT trading volume remains very low, with many collections UNPINNED and limited secondary market activity on Astar EVM marketplaces.
X account (@AstarDegens) shows consistently low engagement (most recent posts have single digit likes and almost zero reposts).
While Astar Degens has built a loyal community, their contribution is primarily social/NFT focused and internal. They do not provide significant DeFi utility, composability, liquidity, or sustainable value accrual to the ASTR token beyond rewarding their own NFT holders.
Alignment with Tokenomics 3.0 goals:
The new system was designed to concentrate rewards on high impact projects that drive real on chain activity, liquidity, and ecosystem growth, not to subsidize internal NFT distributions.
Keeping Astar Degens in the 16 slots occupies a valuable position that could go to a protocol with measurable DeFi impact (DEX, lending, infrastructure, etc.).
Proposed action:
Remove Astar Degens from dApp Staking starting next cycle (or as soon as governance allows).
This frees the slot for a higher impact project and aligns better with the new “high impact” criteria.
I am open to discussion and data from the Astar Degens team if they believe they provide more ecosystem value than currently visible.
Looking forward to community feedback.
I think we should review all of the 16 dapps at the same time..
Something that surprized me was that I think 6 (correct me if I’m wrong) was willing to turn up to an AMA. I would expect more of the 16 dapps to be taking the initiative to turn up to listen to the future of ASTAR..
Since there was already a review to select the 16 dapps..
Then maybe we can just receive that report from the team directly? @Gaius_sama
Astar Degens wasn’t the first on my bingo card to get taken down..
I think they provide a lot to the space through their various treasury adventures..
Before fully expressing my opinion on your proposal, I prefer to wait for the responses from the directly interested parties — first and foremost from Astar Degen and the community council.That said, I can’t disagree with you on the volume issue. However, it must be noted that in the current market — and especially on Astar after everything we’ve been through — it’s extremely difficult to achieve decent engagement.Personally, I don’t see any reason to remove Astar Degen from dApp Staking as long as they continue to remain active. They deserve to stay in. I would understand the need to remove them only if there were another project waiting in line that is currently blocked because of them. I’m not aware of any such situation, so I’d appreciate it if someone could correct me if there actually is a queue of projects ready to enter.Intuitively — and this is just my personal interpretation — I don’t believe there is one.It’s not necessary to focus solely on DeFi (which I still consider a core pillar of any blockchain). We need to cover all areas.I’ll stop here. As I said earlier, I’m waiting for the responses from the other users.
I feel like sonevibe and d8a should be in the 16 as they’re both creative dapps that are building specifically for Astar..
But it’s difficult to say what makes the 16 better..
I think we should wait for the report that was made by the team..
I feel this report should be posted today for full transparency!
I had the suspicion that you preferred those… That’s exactly why there is a council without conflicts of interest and, possibly, a community that makes the decisions. As the team has extensively explained, any new dApp or old one is welcome, especially if it fully respects the parameters. Therefore, I have no doubt that those you mentioned will also be taken into consideration once everything has been verified.It is not correct to call for a report today just to give the impression of transparency on an issue that someone raised today. The reports, as provided for in the internal regulations, will be an essential metric for continuing to benefit from the program. Let’s avoid unnecessarily stressing the teams.
The problem is that a bias has been created amongst friends..
NFT bridges for example has various bugs and very little information about its product/activity but managed to secure a position (probably because one of the team is an advisor.)..
But the actual product is basically irrelevant now because ccip can bridge an NFT anyway..
But ultimately my point is that the having the team decide what ones are good/bad and then mainly promoting the ones that are related to the team is basically creating a bureaucracy within astar.
On this point, I’m with you all the way. I’ve always maintained that the absence of conflicts of interest must be total and cover every angle — a full 360 degrees — across all areas, from the dApps right down to the composition of the teams………
Thanks for raising this, and for the broader conversation happening here.
On the AMA: We intentionally invited 6 projects for this round, not all 16. A 1-hour call with 16 teams leaves almost no time for each to speak. The format was designed for quality discussion. Future AMAs will rotate through the roster.
On the selected projects and the rationale behind the 16: That sits with the @Community_Council. I’ll leave it to them to address directly.
On timing: The new system launched two weeks ago. Reassessing the lineup this early, based on snapshot data, is premature. We should let it run and evaluate impact over a meaningful period before drawing conclusions.
On Astar Degens: I’m fully aligned with Marroz. They have been consistent contributors through difficult market conditions. They are still active, still here, still working with other projects. I would consider delisting only if they go dark entirely, which is not the case. There is also no standout project currently waiting that would justify freeing this slot. Removing them without a clear replacement candidate is not the right move.
One last point: Your project, SoneVibe, did not pass the current dApp Staking selection, and the other voice pushing hardest for this removal is in the same situation. Proposing to delist a selected project while your own sits outside the list is a direct conflict of interest. This thread was opened 10 days after the new system launched, targeting a specific project, by someone with a direct stake in freeing up that slot. We are not credulous, the Community Council is not credulous, and this context will be factored into how this discussion is weighted. If your project believes it meets the criteria for dApp Staking, the right path is to apply through the proper process, not to campaign for the removal of projects that are already contributing.
Happy to continue the conversation as the new system matures and more data becomes available.
